Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 4.00 average.
Old May 24th, 2017   #2206
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
The ongoing saga of the Navy's quest for an OTH missile to arm it's small surface combatants just claimed another victim. LM has pulled LRASM out of the running. Given all the buzz on NCW, it's a bit strange that the RFP seems to call for a less capable design. Simpler is usually cheaper.


Lockheed Martin drops out of US Navy missile competition

WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor, is dropping out of the U.S. Navy’s over-the-horizon missile program intended to give a lethal capability to littoral combat ships and frigates..

Industry sources indicated they felt the initial RFP was viable, but as requirements were refined during the question-and-answer process, Boeing and Lockheed felt that key attributes of their systems, particularly networking capabilities and in-flight targeting updates, were being discounted, robbing Lockheed’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and Boeing’s extended-range Harpoon Block II Plus of key competitive advantages. Versions of both weapon systems are in development for Naval Air Systems Command to provide air-launched versions, expected to enter service ahead of any surface-launched variant.

“There was no value for being able to go after radiating or emitting targets,” an industry source said, discounting an LRASM capability that can detect emitting and moving targets. “Through responses it became clear there would be no credit for attacking emitting targets, and no requirement to be on a network.”


More
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2207
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
The ongoing saga of the Navy's quest for an OTH missile to arm it's small surface combatants just claimed another victim. LM has pulled LRASM out of the running. Given all the buzz on NCW, it's a bit strange that the RFP seems to call for a less capable design. Simpler is usually cheaper.


Lockheed Martin drops out of US Navy missile competition

WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin, frustrated by changing requirements the company feels are skewed to a particular competitor, is dropping out of the U.S. Navy’s over-the-horizon missile program intended to give a lethal capability to littoral combat ships and frigates..

Industry sources indicated they felt the initial RFP was viable, but as requirements were refined during the question-and-answer process, Boeing and Lockheed felt that key attributes of their systems, particularly networking capabilities and in-flight targeting updates, were being discounted, robbing Lockheed’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and Boeing’s extended-range Harpoon Block II Plus of key competitive advantages. Versions of both weapon systems are in development for Naval Air Systems Command to provide air-launched versions, expected to enter service ahead of any surface-launched variant.

“There was no value for being able to go after radiating or emitting targets,” an industry source said, discounting an LRASM capability that can detect emitting and moving targets. “Through responses it became clear there would be no credit for attacking emitting targets, and no requirement to be on a network.”


More
I would assume the NSM would then be a running favorite if Harpoon and LRASM feel hard done by.
I like the NSM, I think it would be a good fit for the LCS. NSM can also do the emitting target thing.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2208
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I would assume the NSM would then be a running favorite if Harpoon and LRASM feel hard done by.
I like the NSM, I think it would be a good fit for the LCS. NSM can also do the emitting target thing.
Its the only one left standing for the RFP. I was surprised by LM's announcement but agree the NSM will be a solid addition to the future Frigate.

It would seem to indicate the USN is willing to have more than one OTH ASM in its future inventory.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2209
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger25 View Post
Its the only one left standing for the RFP. I was surprised by LM's announcement but agree the NSM will be a solid addition to the future Frigate.

It would seem to indicate the USN is willing to have more than one OTH ASM in its future inventory.
I'm sure the US can support that arrangement.

The NSM and LRASM are two pretty different missiles.

NSM is ideal for fitting into a F-35 weapons bay, or onto a smaller combatant where weight could be an issue. It's lighter and physically smaller. LCS and perhaps other ships as a box launcher.

LRASM is bigger and has longer range. So is better suited for longer range strike and more complicated flight paths. It is over double the weight of a NSM and physically bigger. I would imagine destroyers would most likely arm themselves with this one.

IMO double the weight puts it in another category.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2210
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
NSM isn't designed for internal carriage on the F-35. That's the JSM.
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2211
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
NSM isn't designed for internal carriage on the F-35. That's the JSM.
Which is an evolved NSM.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2212
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
NSM isn't designed for internal carriage on the F-35. That's the JSM.
Your right of course.

There is rumored to be a sea launched version of the JSM, I wonder if they would consider that instead of the NSM. The sea launched JSM would be mk41 compatible where as NSM is not.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2213
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,040
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I would assume the NSM would then be a running favorite if Harpoon and LRASM feel hard done by.
I like the NSM, I think it would be a good fit for the LCS. NSM can also do the emitting target thing.
There is some ambiguity in the link. I read it as Lockmart have only pulled out of the competition for the LCS and proposed frigates.
I therefor assume that LRASM will still be purchased for the DDGs and CGs.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #2214
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
There is some ambiguity in the link. I read it as Lockmart have only pulled out of the competition for the LCS and proposed frigates.
I therefor assume that LRASM will still be purchased for the DDGs and CGs.
I think you're right. LRASM appears to have been overkill for this particular competition.
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2017   #2215
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
USN looking to add Flight III DDG51s in 2017 contracts

The USN is working with both builders of the DDG 51s to upgrade new hull builds to Floght III configurations. Main improvements are around the SPY-6 upgrade from SPY-1 AMDR. Another notable upgrade is the powerplant. Overall power goes from 9 up to 12 MW. Interesting if you consider what the new excess power could be used for.

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/31/nav...rst-flight-iii

The USN is still actively testing a 150KW laser on the USS Ponce with a goal of ramping up to 200-300 KW sooner than intitially planned.

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/26/rep...ty-projectiles
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2017   #2216
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 559
Threads:
Interesting news in the the April 2014 Russian Claims on DDG51 electronic attack

I think we all assumed a minimal about of truth to State Media claim in Russian that the April 2014 electronic attack of the USS Donal Cook disabled its Aegis Systems. Now a report has been closed detailing that is was merely State Propoganda and that the Khibiny system is not even installed on SU-24s.



https://defensesystems.com/articles/...akeew.aspx?m=2
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2017   #2217
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
Looks like a reasonable idea. Spend the money to extend the life of existing hulls, upgrading capabilities where feasible. Balance it with new build/designs incorporating new tech that can't be retrofitted to legacy platforms.


https://news.usni.org/2017/06/01/nav...ars#more-25945

NAVSEA: Extending Surface Ship Service Lives Could Speed Up 355-Ship Buildup By 10-15 Years

The Navy could reach a 355-ship fleet 10 to 15 years faster than current plans allow if it extended the service life of today’s surface ships by five or 10 years each, effectively cutting in half the time it would take to complete the fleet buildup, the commander of Naval Sea Systems Command said today.

Vice Adm. Tom Moore called the plan “extremely low risk” and said most, if not all, steel-hulled ships could remain in service for 30 to 35 years or more instead of the planned 25 years for a relatively low cost...

Moore told reporters after the event that he was confident cruisers, destroyers, amphibious ships, Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ships and even logistics ships could be kept for 30 to 35 years with proper maintenance – though he noted he was less confident about the aluminum-hulled Independence-variant LCSs made by Austal USA.

“I don’t want to presuppose a decision” on the Austal LCSs, he said.
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2017   #2218
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: terra
Posts: 453
Threads:
Further to my previous post, the Navy is looking at tapping the mothball fleet to bump up fleet numbers. If the numbers work out then the USS Kitty Hawk may possibly return to active service. Older Ticos don't seem to be under consideration though some Perry-class frigates may be.

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive
colay1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2017   #2219
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
Further to my previous post, the Navy is looking at tapping the mothball fleet to bump up fleet numbers. If the numbers work out then the USS Kitty Hawk may possibly return to active service. Older Ticos don't seem to be under consideration though some Perry-class frigates may be.

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive
Bringing Kitty back would seem to be a pretty big effort, but as an additional carrier would be a huge asset.

Lightly upgraded FFG's would be handy fill ins for LCS ships.Not sure if I would recommend a FFG up.

If the US is desperate, maybe they could have a few of the RAN's old FFG's, they have already been upgraded.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2017   #2220
Super Moderator
Major General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,016
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay1 View Post
Further to my previous post, the Navy is looking at tapping the mothball fleet to bump up fleet numbers. If the numbers work out then the USS Kitty Hawk may possibly return to active service. Older Ticos don't seem to be under consideration though some Perry-class frigates may be.

US Navy Looking At Bringing Retired Carrier USS Kitty Hawk Out Of Mothballs - The Drive
Usual crap from Tyler Rogoway. Of the five decommed Tico's two of them have already been scrapped. The others have been raided for 10 or so years to support the other SPY-1A ships.
Besides the USN looked at updating them in the early 2000's and replacing the twin arm bandits with VLS wasn't really possible (hull layout is different internally, specifically back aft), from what I remember they would of ended up with a SPY-1A ship with less VLS cells than a Flight IIA Burke. Also all the Tico's are structural basket-cases and the early ones with the heavier masts were even more so. All that meant that refitting the flight 0 Tico's would of cost more than half the cost of a brand new IIA Burke with less of a service life and older, more manpower intensive radar set.

The Kitty Hawk has been raided for parts to support the Nimitz's as well. There may also be issues with it's boilers no longer being supported and a host of other logistical issues. It could all be done but really, is it worth the cost? The USN may be looking at it but I'd be surprised if any of this happened.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM.